CAROLINA CLEMENTE VS GSIS

FACTS
Deceased Pedro Clemente, husband of petitioner Carolina, worked as a janitor under
the Department of Health for 10 years. He was assigned at the Ilocos Norte Skin
Clinic. From November 3-14, Pedro was hospitalized at the Central Luzon Sanitarium
due to nephritis. He was also found to be suffering from portal cirrhosis and leprosy.
On November 14, 1976 Pedro Clemente died of uremia due to nephritis. Petitioner
thereafter filed with the GSIS a claim for employees compensation under the Labor
Code. GSIS denied the claim of the petitioner because the ailments of her husband
were not occupational diseases taking into consideration the nature of his work
and/or (sic) or were not in the least causally related to his duties and conditions of
work.
Petitioner requested for reconsideration of the GSIS' denial of her claim, stating that
the ailments of her husband were contracted in the course of his employment and
were aggravated by the nature of his work. GSIS still denied her claim and
forwarded records of petitioners claim to the Employees Compensation
Commission (ECC) for review. ECC affirmed GSIS decision.
Petitioner now seeks review of the ECCs decision.
ISSUE
WON PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION
RULING
SC finds sufficient evidence on record to sustain the petitioners view.
The claim in question falls under the provision of Labor Code, specifically Article
167(L) thereof. Said provision together with Section 1(b) Rule 3 of the
Amended Rules on Employees Compensation provides that for the sickness
and the resulting disability/death to be compensable the sickness must be the result
of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the Rules with the conditions
therein satisfied; otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the
disease is increased by the working conditions.
However, although the ailments of Pedro were not listed as one of the occupational
diseases under Annex A of the Rules, the Court ruled in Sarmiento v. Employees
Compensation Commission:
Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for
compensation (San Valentin v. Employees' Compensation Commission, 118 SCRA 160; Better
Building, Inc., v. Puncan, 135 SCRA 62). The degree of proof required under P.D. 626; is
merely substantial evidence, which means, "such relevant evidence as

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion" (Cristobal v. Employees' Compensation Commission, supra, citing Ang Tibay v. Court of
Industrial Relations and National Labor Union, Inc., 69 Phil. 635; and Acosta v. Employees' Compensation
Commission, 109 SCRA 209).

The claimant must show, at least, by substantial

evidence that the development of the disease is brought largely by the
conditions present in the nature of the job. What the law requires is a
reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It is enough that
the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable. Medical
opinion to the contrary can be disregarded especially where there is some
basis in the facts for inferring a work-connection.
Petitioner avers that for ten years, the deceased had to clean the clinic and its
surroundings and to freely mix with its patients. She claims that it was during this
time that he was attacked by other dreadful diseases such as uremia, cancer of the
liver, and nephritis.
The ECC cited medical authorities who provided that the major ailments of Pedro
Clemente, i.e. nephritis, leprosy, etc. could be traced from bacterial and viral
infections. The petitioners husband worked as a janitor in a skin clinic and was
exposed to different carriers of viral and bacterial diseases. It is, therefore, not
unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Clemente's working conditions definitely
increased the risk of his contracting the aforementioned ailments.
Although respondents admit that there may have been an aggravation of an
existing ailment, they cannot contend that such aggravation is no longer
compensable since it is clear that Pedro was still healthy enough to work for 10
years before he became too ill to work. Thus the aggravation of the disease was
compensable.
This Court has held in appropriate cases that the conservative posture of the
respondents is not consistent with the liberal interpretation of the Labor Code and
the social justice guarantee embodied in the Constitution in favor of the workers
(Cabanes v. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al., L-50255, January 30, 1982). Moreover, as a
general rule, doubts should be resolved in favour of the claimantemployee.
SC respondent GSIS is hereby ordered to pay petitioner:
1. 12,000php as death benefits
2. 1,200php as attorneys fees